Even Silly Antics Deserve First Amendment Rights Adolescents have long adored the absurd use of language to shock, amuse and -- best of all -- draw attention. When an Alaska high school senior, Joseph Frederick, unfurled a banner that said "BONG HiTS 4 JESUS" outside his school in 2002, no doubt he embraced that ridiculous message for all of those reasons. But this week the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the message was designed to promote illegal drug use. And on that basis, the majority agreed that the principal did not violate Frederick's First Amendment right to free speech when she suspended him from school. [continues 268 words]
ISSUE: High court limits student speech. No one could determine exactly what "bong hits 4 Jesus" means. But a sharply divided U.S. Supreme Court decided the statement was noxious enough, given its source -- a student -- that it deserves to be squelched. The 5-4 ruling flies in the face of long-standing free speech protections and inappropriately extends a principal's censorship reach beyond the schoolhouse door. Existing precedent has long determined that students do not have the same First Amendment rights on school grounds as the rest of society, and rightly so, because of safety, order and other concerns. As Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the majority opinion, "The First Amendment does not require schools to tolerate at school events student expression that contributes" to illegal drug use and other dangers. [continues 202 words]
In January 2002, in Juneau, Alaska, Joseph Frederick had the sort of idea that makes a teenager seem like one of nature's mistakes. Last week, after five years and the attention of 13 federal judges, Frederick became a footnote in constitutional history. His case illustrated how the multiplication and extension of rights lead to the proliferation of litigation. It also illustrated how nine justices can civilly come to strikingly different conclusions about undisputed facts. This story actually began in 1965, in Des Moines, Iowa, when three teenagers wore black armbands to school to protest the Vietnam War. Their school said the bands or the students must go. The students kept the bands, were suspended, sued and won a 7-2 Supreme Court victory in 1969. The court said that students do not "shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate." [continues 449 words]
Washington -- In January 2002, in Juneau, Alaska, Joseph Frederick had the sort of idea that makes a teenager seem like one of nature's mistakes. Last week, after five years and the attention of 13 federal judges, Frederick became a footnote in constitutional history. His case illustrated how the multiplication and extension of rights lead to the proliferation of litigation. It also illustrated something agreeable in a disagreeably angry era -- how nine intelligent, conscientious justices can civilly come to strikingly different conclusions about undisputed facts. [continues 689 words]
In January 2002, in Juneau, Alaska, Joseph Frederick had the sort of idea that makes a teenager seem like one of nature's mistakes. Last week, after five years and the attention of 13 federal judges, Frederick became a footnote in constitutional history. His case illustrated how the extension of rights lead to the proliferation of litigation. It also illustrated something agreeable in a disagreeably angry era: How nine intelligent, conscientious justices can civilly come to strikingly different conclusions about undisputed facts. [continues 595 words]
The John S. and James L. Knight Foundation warned that our children don't fully appreciate or respect the rights protected by the First Amendment. The foundation released a national study in 2006 that showed nearly half the students surveyed believed that the First Amendment went too far in the rights it guarantees, and 46 percent believed that newspapers should not publish stories without government approval. The report blamed educators for not doing a better job of teaching students how essential free expression is to our system of government. [continues 1045 words]
The First Amendment rights of students took another whack last week when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of a high-school principal who suspended a student for unfurling a banner that read, rather nonsensically, "Bong Hits 4 Jesus." The 5-4 ruling only adds to the assault on free speech that continues nearly unabated in today's political climate. It's more than a little depressing for those of us who still believe the 45 words that comprise the First Amendment are the linchpin of our liberties. [continues 752 words]
The Slippery Dope In what's been dubbed the "Bong Hits for Jesus Case," the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 against bong hits. Morse v. Frederick, settled Monday, concerned Joseph Frederick, an Alaskan teenager who, in 2002, unveiled a 14-foot banner reading Bong Hits 4 Jesus as the Olympic Torch passed his Juneau high school on its way to the Winter Games in Salt Lake City. The principal suspended Frederick, who sued on First Amendment grounds. He's said he saw the phrase on a snowboard, had no idea what it meant, and it was intended only to prove that he could say anything at school at any time. [continues 323 words]
Alaskan Principal Had Every Right to Punish Errant Teen Well, the U.S. Supreme Court has done it again. It has reached another of its all too-rare correct decisions! In 2002, the Olympic Torch Relay passed through Juneau, Alaska en route to its destination at Salt Lake City. As it passed Juneau-Douglas High School, the students, with permission of the school officials, had lined the streets to see the procession. At a chosen moment, Joseph Frederick, a student, suddenly unfurled a 15-foot banner reading "Bong Hits 4 Jesus." [continues 267 words]
The conservative Supreme Court majority may be using wildly mixed reasoning on First Amendment issues, but the inconsistencies don't ease fears about this court's capacity for a coordinated, all-out attack on free speech. In the same week that the court expanded First Amendment protections for unregulated campaign advertising by special-interest groups, the justices ruled 5-4 that an Alaska high school was right to suspend a student for displaying a silly and innocuous banner during an off-campus parade. [continues 427 words]
The impact of the Supreme Court's latest First Amendment rulings is well defined in one case and not so in the other, leaving a host of special interests applauding wildly and those who believe that student speech is as protected as any other-shaken. The practical result of the court's 5-4 decision to allow issue ads before an election that mention a specific candidate probably will be to substantially increase the cost of the upcoming presidential and congressional elections, already approaching a record of over $1 billion. Predictions are that freeing up all those special-interest groups, from businesses to unions to religious-based organizations with a social or economic agenda, to back one candidate or debase another could double the expenditures. For instance, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce reportedly has dramatically increased its election-year spending to push its policies on a number of issues despite the new laws on campaign expenditures. [continues 594 words]
In January 2002, in Juneau, Alaska, Joseph Frederick had the sort of idea that makes a teenager seem like one of nature's mistakes. Last week, after five years and the attention of 13 federal judges, Frederick became a footnote in constitutional history. His case illustrated how the multiplication and extension of rights lead to the proliferation of litigation. It also illustrated something agreeable in a disagreeably angry era -- how nine intelligent, conscientious justices can civilly come to strikingly different conclusions about undisputed facts. [continues 689 words]
IN JANUARY 2002, in Juneau, Alaska, Joseph Frederick had the sort of idea that makes a teenager seem like one of nature's mistakes. Last week, after five years and the attention of 13 federal judges, Frederick became a footnote in constitutional history. His case illustrated how the multiplication and extension of rights lead to the proliferation of litigation. It also illustrated something agreeable in a disagreeably angry era -- how nine intelligent, conscientious justices can civilly come to strikingly different conclusions about undisputed facts. [continues 689 words]
In January 2002, in Juneau, Alaska, Joseph Frederick had the sort of idea that makes a teenager seem like one of nature's mistakes. Last week, after five years and the attention of 13 federal judges, Frederick became a footnote in constitutional history. His case illustrated how the multiplication and extension of rights lead to the proliferation of litigation. It also illustrated something agreeable in a disagreeably angry era -- how nine intelligent, conscientious justices can civilly come to strikingly different conclusions about undisputed facts. [continues 691 words]
WASHINGTON -- In January 2002, in Juneau, Alaska, Joseph Frederick had the sort of idea that makes a teenager seem like one of nature's mistakes. Last week, after five years and the attention of 13 federal judges, Frederick became a footnote in constitutional history. His case illustrated how the multiplication and extension of rights lead to the proliferation of litigation. It also illustrated something agreeable in a disagreeably angry era -- how nine intelligent, conscientious justices can civilly come to strikingly different conclusions about undisputed facts. [continues 689 words]
I'm glad you quoted Chief Justice John Roberts in your Supreme Court editorial, even if I did have to muddle through your usual bashing of The New York Times to get to it. "When the First Amendment is at stake," Roberts wrote in the campaign financing decision, "the tie goes to the speaker, not the censor." If that's true, I can't wait to see how you'll defend the decision in the "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" case. In that 5-4 ruling, Roberts sided with a school principal in Alaska who suspended a student for exercising his First Amendment rights by unfurling a banner with those words on it across the street from the school. The court decided that "bong hits" promoted the use of marijuana and, therefore, should be censored. [continues 179 words]
School officials must have authority to run a school as they see fit. But that power is not, nor should it be, unfettered. When the U.S. Supreme Court ruled this week against a high school student who claimed his free speech rights were infringed, it did so narrowly - and wisely. The free speech rights of students have ultimately been preserved. The high court overturned in a 5-4 decision a ruling by the San Francisco-based 9th Circuit Court of Appeals that held student Joseph Frederick had the right to hold a banner that read "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" on a public street outside of the high school he attends. Frederick pulled the silly stunt for the benefit of the TV crews filming the Olympic torch going through Juneau, Alaska. [continues 287 words]
It was not a banner day for the free speech rights of students. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Monday that a high school principal in Juneau, Alaska, did not violate the free speech rights of a student when she suspended him for unfurling a 14-foot banner that read "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" as the Olympic torch parade passed by the school on its way to the 2002 Winter Games in Salt Lake City. Whenever the nation's highest court hears a case that could ultimately restrict free speech, the nation should cross its fingers. [continues 288 words]
